Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[iBrian]

Should Paul be removed from the NT? For example, have the Pauling epistles diminished the ministry of Jesus, by turning it from practice to theory?

In fact, should the New Testment in general be re-organised, so that the Gospels and teachings of Jesus stand out more, and the Gospel of Thomas added as a study point, with the Pauline works mixed in with the general epistles and early church writings (for example, I Clement and Ignatius, for example) - so that no single Epistle can be regarded as authoritative, but instead as interesting but non-binding commentary?

OR does Paul deserve a most necessary place in the New Testament, because without Paul, Christianity lacks an inpsired commentator to explain the life of Jesus?

General discussion point...

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

What are and are not actual writings of Paul?

That seems like the threshold question.

 

[kiwimac]

I wonder, Brian, whether Paul's writings have been misinterpreted. It seems to me that the early church liked what he had to say, they were the ones closest in time to the Christ event, so maybe we are seriously missing what paul is on about?

Kiwimac

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I wonder, Brian, whether Paul's writings have been misinterpreted. It seems to me that the early church liked what he had to say, they were the ones closest in time to the Christ event, so maybe we are seriously missing what paul is on about?

Kiwimac

I tend to agree that there is a another interpretation. The first challenge is sorting out what Paul wrote from what others wrote though. Early on, Paul was claimed as a valuable source by both Gnostics and Catholics. To reinforce certain doctrinal positions, some of the "Pauline" epistles were written much later and attributed to Paul. It is hard to find workable alternative interpretations to some of the language of these later non-Pauline writings because they may have been designed specifically to not allow for any.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I like Paul. Just not all the stuff he said (but thank god for that whole anti-circumcision thing). I imagine if he were to find out his letters were being used to define doctrine he'd be horrfied. His letters related to very specific matters and yet have been applied to everything and everyone and on many occasions not just adverse to the teachings of Jesus, but Paul's own words.

As ever--CONTEXT! Context is the cure all.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Should Paul be removed from the NT?

Absolutely!!

I don't think his letters should be anywhere in the Bible as he corrupted the true gospels with his own revisionism. He is the great Usurper!

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

I agree with Mus Zibii. When I was younger I was influenced by one of Andre Gide's books, in which he gives the opinion that whereas Jesus was all about love, Paul was all about the Law. When I actually read through Romans from start to end I realised the opposite was true. Paul is at pains to show that mere adherence to the letter the Law is the on lowest level of relationship to God. But then we die to sin and are raised to new life in Jesus Christ, a life characterised by unselfish love.

When some theologians use Paul's letters as Law, they are completely missing his whole point. Indeed he would be horrified. Paul was doing his best as a sort of agony aunt to emerging churches, offering practical day-to-day advice on local problems. Sometimes some things he writes looks rather odd to us today, about women for example, but I like to think that, for the people it was written for, it would have seemed like common sense.

And that's his vital message: Use your intelligence! So I think Paul's letters should remain where they are, but maybe with a health warning - engage brain before use.

 

[JJM]

I tend to agree that there is a another interpretation. The first challenge is sorting out what Paul wrote from what others wrote though. Early on, Paul was claimed as a valuable source by both Gnostics and Catholics. To reinforce certain doctrinal positions, some of the "Pauline" epistles were written much later and attributed to Paul. It is hard to find workable alternative interpretations to some of the language of these later non-Pauline writings because they may have been designed specifically to not allow for any.

I've never heard that Paul’s epistles where written much later. Many of them weren’t written directly by Paul but I've heard that that is because early scribes would take note of the letters he wished them to write because He gave a lot of information and then would rewrite it in their own words with the same basic meaning.

 

[JJM]

I like Paul. Just not all the stuff he said (but thank god for that whole anti-circumcision thing). I imagine if he were to find out his letters were being used to define doctrine he'd be horrfied. His letters related to very specific matters and yet have been applied to everything and everyone and on many occasions not just adverse to the teachings of Jesus, but Paul's own words.

As ever--CONTEXT! Context is the cure all.

I agree with most although I think that they hold a general knowledge that can be applied to many occasions if you know what the original circumstances where. I think that a majority of his teachings are corrupted by most Christians Just like Augustine’s where corrupted by Calvin. (Calvin used out of context pieces of his writing to support his claims ignoring Augustine’s most profound statement "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.") For example, I think that the part of about works of the law in his letters is corrupted to mean all deeds when at that time that phrase specifically referred to the dietary laws, circumcision, ect. Not love you neighbor, don't steal, don't murder, ect.



Any way after all of my responses I'd have to say that I think they should remain. I think the Church Fathers knew what they where doing when they chose them and as long as they aren't corrupted they are a good source of Christian learning. Plus If I said we should remove them after the Council of Trent I'd feel really bad about going to communion on Sunday. I’m goona trust the Holy Spirit.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

For all of you who cling to the doctrine of Paul, may I suggest you read 'the pauline conspiracy', which is listed among the articles on this web site.


Wolfgang

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Wolfgang,

I have just read the summary of the Pauline conspiracy. Though I would not detract from the extent of the research, and think there may be some valid points raised, there is much which is easily answered and much which is pure invective. I would no more enter into a discussion based on this work can I would grapple with a charging rhinosceros. Suffice it to say, I stick to what I said above.

With respect,
VC

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Wolfgang,

I have just read the summary of the Pauline conspiracy. Though I would not detract from the extent of the research, and think there may be some valid points raised, there is much which is easily answered and much which is pure invective. I would no more enter into a discussion based on this work can I would grapple with a charging rhinosceros. Suffice it to say, I stick to what I said above.

With respect,
VC

VC, Thanks for replying!
I would encorage you to read the whole book, each and every chapter, but particularly the chapters devoted to Corinthians and Galatians. One must not judge a book by its summary.

As to grappling with Rhinos, this is often an essential task as we dare to consider matters outside our comfort zone.

Hallelu YAH!!

Wolfgang

 

[Ben57]

What are and are not actual writings of Paul?

That seems like the threshold question.

The books attributed to Paul

Romans
Place Written: Corinth
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 56

1 Corinthians
Place Written: Ephesus
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

2 Corinthians
Macedonia
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 55

Galatians
Place Written: Corinth or Syrian Antioch
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50-52

Ephesians
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


Philippians
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


Colossians
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


1 Thessalonians
Place Written: Corinth
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 50


2 Thessalonians
Place Written: Corinth
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 51


1 Timothy
Place Written: Macedonia
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64



2 Timothy
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 65


Titus
Place Written: Macedonia (?)
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61-64


Philemon
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 60-61


Hebrews
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed (C.E.): c. 61


Personally I do not think any of Paul’s words detract from the words of Jesus. He adds to them and explains them and shows practical ways of what being a footstep follower of Jesus actually means.


He changed from being a lawyer and a persecutor of Christians to being a hated Christian. His writings set out the Christian way of life as it was followed in the first century and how anyone calling then self a Christian now should conduct their life.

 

[Marsh]

I've heard many times from many people that Paul's writing is inconsistent with Jesus' teachings. But here's my question: Are these inconsistencies real, or are they a symptom of our lack of understanding, and a sign that our generation does not understand Jesus?

Personally, I think it's pretty arrogant to think that we can make judgments on Paul, not having walked in his shoes.

 

[Ben57]

I would like to hear from anyone that thinks that Paul is out of step with the teachings of Jesus. Personally I do not think so. Personaly I have never encounted any thing from the writtings of Paul that suggests he was out of step with Jesus

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

I would like to hear from anyone that thinks that Paul is out of step with the teachings of Jesus. Personally I do not think so. Personaly I have never encounted any thing from the writtings of Paul that suggests he was out of step with Jesus

It seems that nobody has read 'the pauline conspiracy' which is posted as an article on this site. Victor's Thesis presents tons of evidence refuting Paul's doctrine and his claim to be an apostle.

By the way, there were only 12 apostles, which is why they were always referred to as THE TWELVE, and Paul cannot possibly be one of THE TWELVE apostles of the Lamb mentioned in Revelation because he was not one of THE TWELVE!!

Jesus warned that although He was not accepted by his own, another would come in his own name and he would be accepted instead. Considering that Christianity is dominated by Pauline doctrine, it certainly appears that Jesus was warning us about Paul.. And don't forget He also warned us to be wary of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, and Paul was a notable Herodian Pharisee.

Please think about this. Do not follow the herd to the wide gate that leads not to the Kingdom. Enter instead by the Narrow Gate.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

 

[JJM]

It seems that nobody has read 'the pauline conspiracy' which is posted as an article on this site. Victor's Thesis presents tons of evidence refuting Paul's doctrine and his claim to be an apostle.

By the way, there were only 12 apostles, which is why they were always referred to as THE TWELVE, and Paul cannot possibly be one of THE TWELVE apostles of the Lamb mentioned in Revelation because he was not one of THE TWELVE!!

Jesus warned that although He was not accepted by his own, another would come in his own name and he would be accepted instead. Considering that Christianity is dominated by Pauline doctrine, it certainly appears that Jesus was warning us about Paul.. And don't forget He also warned us to be wary of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, and Paul was a notable Herodian Pharisee.

Please think about this. Do not follow the herd to the wide gate that leads not to the Kingdom. Enter instead by the Narrow Gate.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Ok First I understand that you like 'the Pauline conspiracy' but could you please just give us an example from it that shows contradictory. Also an apostle is someone who was sent directly by Christ to spread the good news. Christ called paul to in a vision thus he's an apostle. When this happened he went and studied Christianity became a Bishop and then began to spread the good news. So no he isn't one of the twelve but he is an apostle.



would you mind showing me this warning from Jesus so I can read it and see if what you say about it is actually what it means

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Ok First I understand that you like 'the Pauline conspiracy' but could you please just give us an example from it that shows contradictory. Also an apostle is someone who was sent directly by Christ to spread the good news. Christ called paul to in a vision thus he's an apostle. When this happened he went and studied Christianity became a Bishop and then began to spread the good news. So no he isn't one of the twelve but he is an apostle.

would you mind showing me this warning from Jesus so I can read it and see if what you say about it is actually what it means

"The Pauline Conspiracy" has dozens if not hundreds of examples that refute Paul's legitimacy, so may I gently ask that you read it in its entirety.

But for now let's take one of the more prominent contradictions:

The chronology of Paul's life.

Acts
(1)Paul converted on the way to Damascus (9:1-8).
(2)He goes to Ananias in Damascus and stays there 'several days' (9:20).
(3)After 'some time'*, Paul goes to Jerusalem (9:23,26) and meets the apostles there (9:27).
(4)Paul preaches in Jerusalem, but due to threats to kill him, he is sent to Tarsus (9:30).
(5)Relief to Jerusalem and Judea taken by Paul & Barnabas (2nd visit) (11:30)
(6)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd time) (12:25)
(7)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd or 4th time) (15:1ff).

Galatians.
(1)Paul is converted (1:16).
(2)He does not go to Jerusalem, but to Arabia and then Damascus (1:17)
(3)After 3 years, Paul goes to Jerusalem, meeting only Cephas and James there (1:18-19) staying only 15 days.
(4)He then goes to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (1:21).
(5)14 years later, Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus (2:1).
(6)Paul confronts Cephas at Antioch (2:11).
(7)No further information.
The 'some time' in Acts 9:19 is not clear as to how long this was; different translations render this 'some time passed' (Jerusalem), 'after a number of days' (Moffatt); the literal Greek is "'many' with the view of being sufficient"; however it is rendered, it is difficult to reconcile this with the three years of Gal 1:18.
*It is not clear whether 12:25 is a return to Jerusalem, or a return to Antioch from Jerusalem; if the former, and the Acts 15 visit is the Gal 2:1-10 one, then in Acts it would be the fourth visit, whilst Paul states it was only the second.
Paul's method of counting in Gal. is not absolutely clear, ie. whether his 14 years in Gal 2:1 is 14 years after his starting point in Gal (ie. his conversion) or 14 years after the first Jerusalem visit 3 years after his conversion which he had mentioned immediately beforehand (ie. a total of 17 years after his conversion).
Numerous others problems arise when trying to reconcile the two accounts, e.g. Acts has Paul in Jerusalem and Judea in his early life (21:17 then 22:3) and as a persecutor of the church there (7:58, 9:1-2,13,21, 26:10) which makes Paul's comment that (Gal 1:22) he was not known by sight by the churches in Judea even after his time in Jerusalem, Syria and Cilicia (1:17- 21) appear impossible. Furthermore when Paul has a dispute with Peter at Antioch about Gentile fellowship in Gal 2, why does he not remind him of what was agreed at the Acts 15 conference on this very subject ?


​

Here's that quote you wanted about Jesus' warning that another would come in his own name whom we would instead accept instead of Jesus:


John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

Jesus warned that false apostles would arrive after His sacrifice to undo His work.


"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches"


Speaking to the saints who are in Ephesus, Jesus said:

"I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you
cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say
they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Rev. 2:2
NKJV


Please recall that Paul preached and wrote to the Ephesians in Asia Minor and was subsequently rejected by them.

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.



​

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.




If Yahshua is not referring to Paul, then to whom is He referring? What other person claiming (in his own name) to be an apostle has the (apostate) church accepted?

John said:

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Paul said:

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(I wonder what spirit is Paul referring to.)

But Yahshua said:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod.

(Paul was a Pharisee.)




​

Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.



Jhn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.



​

Finally, it is clear that only 12 apostles were personally and publicly appointed by Jesus, and besides, only 12 apostles were recognized by John in Revelation.



Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.






















You have also claimed that "Christ called paul to in a vision thus he's an apostle", but anybody can make such a claim. However Paul had no identifiable witnesses to this event. And remember that Saul-Paul was an admitted murderer of Christians. Would any court in the world accept the claim of a murderer without corroborating evidence? AND there are major contradictions in his story, which seems to suggest that he cannot keep his story straight as it is a lie.

Paul's vision.
Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING the voice but NOT SEEING anyone.
Acts 22:9 states they did NOT HEAR the voice.
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.

​

 

[Marsh]

Here's that quote you wanted about Jesus' warning that another would come in his own name whom we would instead accept instead of Jesus:[/font]

John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

Jesus warned that false apostles would arrive after His sacrifice to undo His work.
[/indent]

Paul preached in Jesus' name; not his own.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Paul preached in Jesus' name; not his own.

Dear Marsha,
I see that you only have one lone objection to my essay!!

Does this mean you agree with my other points?!

With respect to the issue of Paul preaching in Jesus' name, he may have claimed to speak in Jesus' name, but he was nonetheless a self-proclaimed apostle and therefore spoke only in his own name and in his own authority.

And Paul called his doctrine 'my gospel' rather than the gospel of Jesus.

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,


2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

​

Not only did Paul call his doctrine 'my gospel' rather than the gospel of Jesus, but he even questioned the legitimacy of any other gospel but his own. No wonder he was rebuked by James and Peter in Jerusalem!!

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

​